The Letters to the Editor department is intended to be a forum for our readers to express their own opinions and ideas. While we appreciate the many complimentary letters we receive each day, you won't find them on this page. Instead, you will find letters that go beyond or even contradict what we have written, letters that offer a different perspective and provide a different view of science fiction. If you would like to submit a letter, please use our feedback form or send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
-- Craig E. Engler, Editor
Disappointed With GvsE
was thoroughly disappointed in GvsE. Not only was the acting
decidedly
below normal and the villains not even close to "campy" levels, but it's all in all
a totally lame production. Most of the original programming for USA Network
is not my cup of tea, but this show is one of its worst attempts. If I
never watch that program again, I will die happy.
Alexandra Rostoker
rostokal@email.uc.edu
GvsE Is Almost As Good As Brimstone
fter seeing GvsE this week, I want to say I liked it. I got a heck
of a
good laugh out of this Brimstone take off, and the chemistry between
the
partners is terrific. No, it's not Brimstone, but I think it will be
good on its own.
Judith Page
judithzu@psnw.com
Blair Is Not True, But Not Misleading
would like to respond to Shelley Thompson's Issue No. 118 letter,
"Blair Witch Fiction? How Disappointing." In it, she hands jeers to
whoever sought to mislead the public
about the veracity of the movie. I have to say that there has been no
deliberate cover-up. True, a portion of the movie's appeal is the "truth"
of
the horror sequences, but at no time did the directors or distributors of
the film attempt to say that it was true. The special on the SCI FI Channel
was a publicity stunt, something that can be seen if one watches the
credits. One of the first words that scrolls up the screen is the word
"cast." Why would there be a cast if the documentary and subsequent special
were real?
In addition, there have been numerous articles and interviews with the
directors (most notably in Spin and the Washington Post)
about the fact
that
the movie is not real. It is fiction, and the directors make no bones about
that fact. The only ones misled were those that paid no attention to the
media (ironic, in this day and age).
Matt Rhodes
MRhodes@fars1.idinc.com
Blair Witch Insults Any Decent Person
fter reading Richard Festa Jr.'s Issue No. 117 letter "The Blair Witch
Persecutes Pagans" and
all the responses it generated, I feel compelled to respond. Mr. Festa had
the right idea, but he approached it the wrong way. This movie is indeed
insulting to "witches," but not them alone. The fact that it involves
and focuses on a pagan
folk
tale that arose out of misunderstandings, prejudice, and knee-jerk
reactions isn't insulting. The fact that it's being marketed mainly as a
true story is.
In order to find out that this movie was fictional, I had to do some
digging. No, make that I had to do a lot of digging. While the
producers
will say that this movie is completely fictional, they only do so when
asked. Also, the amount of people that will be able to see those
interviews is relatively small.
The main source of
information the public has on the movie are the commercials on TV, the trailers in
the theater, and the "documentary" on the SCI FI Channel, all of which
advance the idea that this movie is true, with not a disclaimer in sight.
Also, the way this movie was filmed is an insult to any decent person.
They turned the actors and a camera crew loose in the woods with vague
instructions and directions. The rest of the movie crew then staged
elaborate events to scare the hell out of these people and, in essence,
subject them to unending
mental and emotional
torture. And I'm supposed to enjoy watching those people suffer through
that hell?
If this movie does well, then Hollywood will be encouraged to make more
movies of this nature. More misinformation will be spread to the public in
a believable manner. More actors will be subjected to mental and emotional
anguish for the public's enjoyment. It may be "only a movie," but The War
of the Worlds was "only a
radio show"
when it was broadcast. How many more lies will be presented as truth
before we learn our lesson?
Josh Brumm
erikose@rocketmail.com
Fooled By Blair, But Not Feeling Foolish
haven't seen the movie The Blair Witch Project yet but I am looking
forward to it. I have to admit that I was fooled by the documentary and
what I saw of the Web site led me to believe that this stuff was true.
Though embarrassed by this revelation, I don't feel in any way betrayed.
Orson Welles pulled this
trick over 60 years
ago. It just goes to show that you have to be careful what you read or watch
on TV. At least I didn't go out and get witch burning paraphernalia.
Tom Vallejos
flyingwombat@earthlink.net
Blair Breaks Hollywood Traditions
y jaw dropped as I read how many letter writers believed The Blair Witch
Project movie and the SCI FI Channel special are true. Have people
forgotten the
cardinal rule of filtering what comes across the tube or in movies through
their common sense? Haven't they heard of using elements of existing
folklore to tell a new tale?
The movie is an intense character study about isolation and loss until it
takes its inevitable turn into horror as the "legend" comes to life. A very
effective suspense/horror film that accomplishes much in a little under 90
minutes. The fact that the cast only used director notes, improvised the
dialogue, and filmed the
bulk of it
themselves deserves recognition for succeeding in breaking many Hollywood
traditions.
By breaking these traditions, the makers of The Blair Witch
Project have called down
the ire of "misled" genre fans who are angry at the wrong people. If you're
angry about being misled, maybe you're angry at yourself for being so
gullible in the first place. Enjoy storytelling of all types, just don't
mistake it for reality.
Don Kinney
babylon@ntw.net
Who Doesn't Like A Muppet Movie? We Don't.
ho doesn't like a Muppet movie? Well, my daughter
for one, and my wife for another. Muppets from Space failed to
entertain on both levels. My son was so bored
he curled up and went to sleep.
I think the problem stemmed from the under use
of familiar characters, probably caused by
Jim Henson's absence. The producers were probably
afraid that the more Kermit talked, the more we'd
realize it wasn't Kermit. (And Statler and Waldorf
just weren't the same for this reason.) And Pepe the
Prawn was just annoying.
As for the human actors, Jeffrey Tambor was horrible. I don't
know what he was going for. He wasn't playing it
straight like Leslie Neilsen's newfound comedy
career, but he wasn't going for laughs either.
If he was going for laughs, he failed miserably.
The movie was a complete letdown, particularly
because I've enjoyed earlier outings and watched
the TV show's first run.
Christopher J. Burke
cjburke@io.com
Surprised By Spock Must Die!
was somewhat surprised to see Spock Must Die! reprinted. I've got the
original paperback still on my shelves and enjoy rereading it once in a
while. James Blish was always one of my favorite Star Trek authors, and
it's good to see it in circulation again. Tamara I. Hladik's review was on the
mark, and I enjoyed it.
Charlene Robbins
char819@ivillage.com
Blish Should Have Received Your Review
just read Tamara I. Hladik's review of Spock Must Die! and
chuckled. Her review was good and it quite frankly surprised
me because when the book was released in 1970 the reviews were far
different. Almost all Trek fans then hated the book and the
reviews were scathing. There were only a few fans, myself
included, that were willing to give the book a chance. I
enjoyed the plot and the characterizations. James Blish was
treated very badly at the time because many fans hated his
story versions of the series, and while he had minor flaws
in some, I didn't think they deviated all that much from the
original. We were all starved for anything Star Trek back
then and he gave it back to us after the cancellation. Thank
you for that review, which Blish should have got
when the book came out.
Ms. Lynn Walker
wyvryn@apk.net
Two Spocks Are Better Than One
quite agree with Tamara I. Hladik's review of Spock Must Die! and the
treatment of the twin Spocks. If you are a Star Trek fan or want an
in depth
read in this universe with this peculiar problem, I urge you to read a
duology named The Price of the Phoenix and The Fate of the
Phoenix by Sondra Marshak and
Myrna Culbreath. Still the best
Star Trek I have read, whether old or new characters!
Chris Karain
alace@mediaone.net
Spock Must Die! Is A True Classic
fully agree with the review of Spock Must Die! It is a true classic
that deserves to be up alongside "City on the Edge of Forever" and "Amok
Time."
The "battle of the minds" between the two Spocks would be a great sequence,
and the final resolution of the Klingon battleship chasing the
Enterprise
is unique, and I'm not at all sure that it would be considered "punishment"
by a true Klingon warrior.
The main barrier to the story's wide acceptance is that it removes the
Klingons totally from the picture. It just wouldn't do to have the
Federation's major competitor removed from space travel.
Steven Thomas
sthomas@ckls.org
Crusade Holds Its Own
here seem to be a couple of things that people are missing about the
story line in Crusade. I've read comments like John Barrett's "The
attitude seems to
be 'Well we have almost five years to save Earth, so let's take our time
and look at the scenery'" (Issue No. 118, "Crusade Leaves Me Cold"),
and from Ed Wright, "If
they have only five years to find a cure to the plague ... why isn't
there a much greater sense of urgency to the show?" (Issue No. 117,
"Crusade
Lacks Urgency"), as well as others. What's missing from these comments,
it seems to me, is that Crusade is the story of a single aspect of the
search for a cure, and an aspect that could be considered something of a
shot in the dark. The mission of Crusade could be better described as
being an exploration mission, seeking new healing technology. The crew
of the Excalibur is hardly the only form of research into a cure for
the
plague.
Further, there have been comments that the cast has "no variety, no
diversity. Just a token alien." Here again, a point is being missed.
This is an Earth ship, not a space station port of call (i.e. Babylon
5).
That there is even one alien onboard would be unusual. But despite
this, there is tremendous diversity in the cast. There is a techno-mage,
one of the most interesting types of people ever seen on Babylon 5
(in my
opinion); there is a thief, someone who can get into almost anything, though
getting out again is always the interesting part; there is a
captain who is not necessarily well liked by the upper echelons of the
command hierarchy; there is a first officer who is a telepath; and so on.
The diversity in the crew, who they are, not what they are, is
tremendous.
So far, I'll fully grant that there has been an element of dryness to the
initial episodes, but that must be expected from a story line that is
serial. These episodes are about creating new threads that will (I hope)
be carried to fruition through the rest of this season, and in the
seasons to follow. I know that I'm already quite hooked into the
story line, and I want to see the rest of the series.
As it was said in The Truman Show, "How will it end?"
Geoffrey H Wathen
gwathen@amadra4robotics.com
Why Crusade Has Been A Disappointment
his letter is mainly meant as a response to Geoff Dakota's comment in his
Issue No. 118 letter, "Crusade Must Establish Its Own Legend"
that Crusade "can't fall back on Babylon 5's story." True,
the show has to establish its own place within the Babylon 5
universe, but that
is the whole point. That is why Crusade has been nothing but a
disappointment from the start.
Babylon 5
introduced us to a richly diverse universe with some powerful races. It
established story elements that should be pivotal to its spin-off series.
For instance, the Excalibur, contrary to what we're told in
Crusade, is not an Earth Alliance
starship. It belongs
to the Interstellar Alliance. Those who serve upon it answer to President
Sheridan and Delenn as Ranger One. With that in mind, we should be seeing
more involvement from the Rangers and the White Star Fleet. Also, we should
be seeing more
than just one alien
on Excalibur's crew. Don't get me wrong, Dureena is a great
character, as
are all the crew members. They have great potential. But the
Excalibur is an Interstellar Alliance
starship. Its crew should draw upon all the
resources of the Alliance. I find it hard to believe that there aren't
people from other races qualified, willing, and able to play a key role in
the search for a cure for the plague. These are just a few of my
criticisms. Crusade holds great
potential. But it
doesn't seem like the same amount of thought went into this series that
went into Babylon 5. So we viewers are left with a very two-dimensional
successor to the B5 mythos.
Stephen L. Castillo
stephencastillo@netZero.net
Forget Crusade, Watch Farscape
keep hearing, give Crusade a chance. I'm a big Babylon 5
fan and I've tried to be patient and give Crusade a chance.
Well, it's almost half way through the planned 13 episodes and I find
it to be a terrible continuance of B5. B5
was a great show because you could believe in the characters; they kept it
interesting. The characters in Crusade seem to be just walking
through the
scenes. The plague, which seems to be the central part of the show, is never
the forefront of the stories. If every person on Earth is going to die from
it, why aren't the crew
searching
all parts of the B5 universe for a cure? The problem is that the show is not
well written. I think they should have done another TV movie about the
telepath war because, unless they thoroughly explain it, no one will ever
know why a telepath is
serving in the
military. I think Crusade could benefit from some new
fresh writing with better characters.
I would also like to give a plug for Farscape. The writing and
acting is
top notch. It has quickly become my favorite show. For those looking for
good SF TV, check it out and let Crusade die a quick death.
Paul Schell
pemmican@tp.net
Crusade Jury Is Still Out
am going to watch Crusade through to the end of its current run,
in hopes
that its lackluster debut and follow-on episodes are following the pattern
set by the first season of Babylon 5. Star Trek: Deep Space
Nine grabbed me in the first
several episodes and never let go. Babylon 5 was more of a
slow-burning
fuse,
but when the show began to explode (for me, near the end of the second
season),
what a bang! I will say that I feel more connected to Crusade's main
characters after only a handful of episodes than I did to most of
Babylon 5's
characters after the entire first season. So I think there is cause for
hope
that things will improve soon, but the jury is still out.
I must commend Gary Cole for his work as Capt. Gideon. Gideon seems to be much more
complex
and interesting a character than Capts. Sinclair, Sheridan, or Lochley were
after the first few times I saw them. Certainly J. Michael Straczynski and
the writing staff
are responsible for some of this. But Cole as Gideon comes across as a
complex bad-boy in his own right, with only an echo of the malevolence of
Lucas Buck, his American Gothic sheriff, and in stark contrast to
his ultra
straight-arrow Mike Brady in the Brady Bunch movies.
Cole's isn't the only good character work I am seeing on Crusade.
But I
don't yet see the kind of ensemble interaction that helped B5 become
a fan
favorite. There is simply no Crusade team that yet compares with, say,
G'Kar
and Londo even as early as B5's first season. After recent episodes of
Crusade, I have some hope that we'll see some interesting sparks
between
the
thief and the archaeologist, or between Gideon and Lochley. But it is too
early to tell if we have already been introduced to Crusade's
blockbuster
duo, have yet to encounter them, or will never meet them. But I'll watch
at
least to the end of the season, to see what's in store.
James Merritt
Presbyte@aol.com
Sliders Fans Were Used
any people have been quick to point out the obvious changes to the cult
SCI FI Channel show Sliders. Many people have said that these
changes hurt the
show. Okay, I
can go with that, change can be sometimes bad. However, how many times can
you do the same allegorical social commentary? I think while the changes
to
the show may have not been the best, it is still an enjoyable weekly event.
For many fans of the show, the recent announcement by the SCI FI Channel to
cancel Sliders was a below-the-belt blow. Over the past year SCI FI
has
made
it a point to push Sliders. Billing the show as "SCI FI's biggest
hit,"
there
have been an infinite number of commercials, the recent showing of seasons
one
through three, and other ways of really building interest among fans of the
show.
Great, right? To hard-core fans of the show, the first slap in the face
was
the dropping of the main character--without a proper explanation, or even
notice. Next came the demise of the show itself. So, the question begs to
be asked, why the big push for a "dead" show? Why? The SCI FI Channel
needed
a headliner for the unknown lineup of shows in "SCI FI Prime."
Sliders was
used, fans were used. Season four ended just a few months ago, and now
season five has begun (with some major cast and budgetary changes, or minor
in the case of the latter). Season five was rushed into production. Now the show
is canceled because of some negative feedback by the fans? What do you
expect when you mutilate a popular show? I think instead of pulling the
rug
out on the fans who the show was pushed so heavily on, SCI FI should work on
putting together some new episodes that tie up the loose ends that have
caused so much negativity. Personally, I love the new episodes. The
main issue of the show is "What if?"--different places, new people. Look,
all the fans really wanted was a good explanation, not an ending! I feel
cheated and used, and so do many other fans. Were we being used
from the beginning? Maybe, but SCI FI did bring us more episodes, and hopefully they
will wise up and do it again!
Craig Gravitz
Brainatra@aol.com
Editor's Note: The only official word from SCI FI on the cancellation of Sliders came from a company spokesperson who said the channel thinks highly of Sliders but feels the show has simply run its course.
Sliders Hasn't Gone Stale, Only Evolved
have been a fan of Sliders for the past two years, since my then
19-year-old
son told me about it. I, too, miss Jerry O'Connell and his brother and I
wish they could have found their real parents in one of the stories before
they left. However, I think Cleavant Derricks is terrific and quite capable
of being the series lead. I think it's a shame that they are canceling
it. It has not gone stale, only evolved.
Teri Reid
ppcr@mindspring.com
You Think SF In The U.S. Is Bad?
f you said that in the United States there is no respect for SF, you're
wrong. Have you ever been in Italy? Here there are a lot of SF series
bought by the TV networks but never played and still in the archives,
series like Sliders, Seaquest, Stargate SG-1,
Mantis, Space Above &
Beyond, bought but never played (incredible). Others, like
Babylon 5, have had strange scheduling--they didn't play the first season,
only the two-hour pilot and then the second season (at 3 a.m.). Star
Trek is a little better; after three years of reruns of the first
season of
Star Trek: Voyager (at 3-4 a.m.), now they're playing
the second at 9:50 a.m. on
Thursday morning. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine is blocked at the third
season (and it was played at
3-4 a.m.). Probably the new season won't be bought. Star Trek: the Next
Generation never had a rerun, and Star Trek was dusted off on the 30th
anniversary and now it's
ended. The X-Files is on the sixth season on prime time in the evenings (the best
rated
series in Italy), but only the four TV films of Tekwar aired in prime on
evenings. Do you
really think that your country is worst then Italy? I don't think so!
Alessandro Felice
alexo82@yahoo.com
Hollywood Should Make More Fantasy Films
am disturbed by the recent turn of events in the SF genre. I am and
always have been an avid reader of high fantasy, and I would like to see more
TV shows and movies being made. My heart leapt for joy when I learned that
live-action movies were being made from J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the
Rings series.
I feel that Hollywood is missing a huge chance to make some great
movies. There are some excellent books out there that could be made into
great movies, or even a TV series. Some examples are Terry Brooks'
Sword of Shannara and the books that
follow it,
David Eddings' Belgariad series, the Dragonlance books, and
so on. All
of these could be made into excellent movies, and a few would probably make
good TV shows. As long as Haim Saban doesn't get a hold of them and turn
them into Power Rangers or anything. Although I do have to admit that
Mystic Knights of Tir Na Nog is a decent enough show, even if it does
misrepresent Celtic culture.
Maybe
if we start flooding places with requests, etc. someone will notice that
there is a market out there for high fantasy films, etc.
Jason Puckett
puck13@bellatlantic.net
